The effects of edible coatings on chicken egg quality
under refrigerated storage
A. M. Biladeau and K. M. Keener1
Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907
ABSTRACT Seventy-three billion chicken eggs are
produced annually in the United States. However, less
than 0.1% of these eggs are exported. Increasing the
shelf-life of eggs may increase export sales. The goal
of this research was to determine whether food-grade
coatings on eggs may extend shelf-life under refriger-
ated storage. Four food-grade coatings were selected:
paraffin wax, mineral oil, soy protein isolate, and whey
protein isolate (WPI). These coatings were applied to
fresh chicken eggs. The eggs were stored for 12 wk in
refrigerated storage at 7°C. Two replicates of the 12-
wk study were conducted. Egg properties measured
included Haugh units, albumen pH, yolk pH, albu-
men CO2 content, vitelline membrane strength, water
loss, shell strength, and shell color. Egg functionality
Key words: edible coating, chicken egg, shelf-life
INTRODUCTION
There is a need to develop a process to extend the
shelf-life of shell eggs and to reduce shell breakage. Cur-
rently, only 0.07% of eggs are being exported from the
United States (American Egg Board, 2006). Ninety-
five percent of the world’s population lives outside the
United States (US Census Bureau, 2008). Extending
the shelf-life of shell eggs beyond 6 wk may lead to in-
creased egg sales export. In addition, 763.2 million eggs
are broken annually, resulting in an approximate $125
million loss (American Egg Board, 2008). Coating eggs
may increase shell strength and potentially decrease the
number of cracked eggs. Previous studies have docu-
mented increased eggshell strength and longer shelf-life
for coated eggs (Meyer and Spencer, 1973; Heath, 1977;
Wong et al., 1996; Cancer, 2005a,b; Cancer and Cansiz,
2008). In these studies, food-grade coatings evaluated
were mineral oil, whey protein isolate (WPI), chitosan,
shellac, soy protein isolate (SPI), wheat gluten, corn
©2009 Poultry Science Association Inc.
Received July 21, 2008.
Accepted January 21, 2009.
1
Corresponding author: kkeener@purdue.edu
1266
measurements included foam volume, angel food cake
volume, and emulsion stability. Statistical analysis was
performed using the SAS PROC GLIMMIX method
(P < 0.05). Results found that coated eggs maintained
higher Haugh units beyond 6 wk compared with the
uncoated eggs. Also, coated eggs maintained a higher
CO2 content and lower albumen pH than the uncoat-
ed eggs over the storage period. Vitelline membrane
strength slightly decreased over time in uncoated eggs,
but did not change in coated eggs. Overall, oil-, wax-,
and WPI-coated eggs maintained higher vitelline mem-
brane strength (14%) than the uncoated eggs. Coating
of chicken eggs with a food-grade film (oil, wax, WPI)
will extend shelf-life beyond 6 wk.
2009 Poultry Science 88:1266–1274
doi:10.3382/ps.2008-00295
zein, and casein. However, previous researchers did not
examine refrigeration or wax coatings.
The primary method of quality assessment in chicken
eggs is Haugh units (HU; USDA, 2008). Haugh unit
is an empirical method that determines a relationship
between the weight and height of the thick albumen
(Haugh, 1937; Stadelman, 1995b). When eggs age, the
thick albumen breaks down into thin albumen. This
breakdown results in a decreased height of the thick
albumen, which is the primary factor in the HU equa-
tion. A higher HU value (i.e., thick albumen height)
indicates a higher quality egg. An AA quality egg has a
HU greater than 72; an A quality egg has a HU of 60 to
72; and a B quality egg has a HU of 31 to 60.
In addition to quality, egg functionality is important.
Eggs have many functional uses including foaming, co-
agulation, and emulsification. Their usability in these
applications may change with extended storage (Ternes,
2001; Jones, 2007). Functionality measurements include
foam formations, angel food cake volume, and emulsi-
fication stability. Angel food cake volume decreases as
eggs age (Jones, 2007). Jones (2007) tested firmness
of mayonnaise over a 10-wk study period and deter-
mined that the firmness of the mayonnaise decreased
with older eggs.
 EFFECTS OF EDIBLE COATINGS ON CHICKEN EGG QUALITY
Previous research has noted that vitelline membrane
strength (VMS) is an important barrier to prevent
bacteria transfer between the albumen and yolk (Gast
et al., 2005). If VMS can be maintained longer, then
the risk of Salmonella penetration into the yolk may be
reduced. The VMS decreases during storage (Li-Chan
et al., 1995; Kirunda and McKee, 2000). In addition,
when the vitelline membrane weakens, it may allow the
yolk to rupture. Shafer et al. (1998) determined that
vitelline membrane proteins degrade over time. This is
due to the breakdown of ovomucin and conversion of
thick albumen to thin albumen, which results in chang-
es to the fiber network of the vitelline membrane (Sha-
fer et al., 1998). Kirunda and McKee (2000) found that
the decreasing VMS is correlated with decreasing HU,
increasing albumen pH, and increasing yolk pH.
The goal of this research is to investigate whether
food-grade coatings can extend shelf-life of shell eggs
under refrigerated storage. The objectives of this re-
search were to determine quality and functionality
of coated eggs during 12 wk of refrigerated storage.
These measurements included HU, albumen and yolk
pH, CO2 loss, VMS, shell strength, water loss, eggshell
color changes, foam volume, angel food cake volume,
and emulsion stability (mayonnaise).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
One hundred fifty dozen fresh eggs from Hy-Line
W36 layers were obtained from a local producer. The
eggs were received less than 24 h old. The eggs were in-
dividually marked and randomly assigned for each test-
ing procedure. Food-grade coatings used in this study
were paraffin wax, mineral oil, SPI, WPI, and uncoated
(control). BiPro WPI was purchased from Danisco (Le
Sueur, MN). Soybean protein isolate was purchased
from ADM (Decatur, IL). Mineral oil was purchased
from Walmart (West Lafayette, IN). Natural glycerine
was purchased from KIC Chemicals Inc. (New Paltz,
NY). Paraffin wax was purchased from Acros Organics
(Geel, Belgium). Forty dozen eggs were selected for un-
coated, oil-coated (oil), and wax-coated (wax). Fifteen
dozen eggs were selected for SPI-coated eggs and WPI-
coated eggs. Once coated, these eggs were placed in re-
frigerated storage (7 ± 2°C) until testing. Haugh units,
albumen pH, yolk pH, albumen CO2 content, VMS, wa-
ter loss, shell strength, eggshell color, and foam volume
were conducted at wk 0, 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 12. Angel
food cake volume testing was conducted at wk 0, 1, 2,
3, 5, 7, 9, and 12 for angel food cake volume. Emulsion
stability testing was performed at wk 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8,
10, and 12. The SPI and WPI egg data were only col-
lected at select time points (wk 0, 2, 6, and 12) because
of time constraints.
Coating Applications
Four different food-grade coatings were applied to
eggs: oil, wax, WPI, and SPI. The WPI coating was
1267
formed using the method by Cancer (2005a). The SPI
coating was formed using the method developed by
Gennadios et al. (1993). Wax was melted at 60°C and
eggs were dipped using a pair of tongs that made con-
tact with the eggs with 2 small holes on the side of
the eggs. When the tongs were removed from the dried
eggs, the holes were filled with paraffin wax. Coating of
the oil, SPI, and WPI eggs all used the same process.
The pointed end of the egg was dipped into the respec-
tive coating and then placed on a small stand pointed
side down. The food-grade coating was then poured
over the egg until it visibly covered the surface. Care
was taken to ensure that each egg had a uniform coat-
ing with no visible defects. The eggs were air-dried at
ambient conditions for approximately 30 min and were
then moved by hand into cartons for the rest of the
storage. Coating thickness for control, wax-, SPI-, and
WPI-coated eggs was measured using a Digital Blue
QX3 microscope (Digital Blue, Marietta, GA). Two
pieces of the egg were broken off at a random location
and glued to a microscope slide. The piece of coated
egg was glued so that the film could be visible on the
shell. The thickness in micrometers at 8 different loca-
tions was then measured. To determine thickness of oil
coatings, the eggs were weighed before and after coat-
ing. The density of oil was determined by weighing 10
replicates of specific volume of oil.
HU Measurements
Haugh units were measured on 15 eggs using an Egg
Multi Tester (Robotmation Co., Tokyo, Japan). This
machine measures an average of the egg albumen height
using ultrasound.
pH Measurements
Five of the 15 eggs measured for HU were also selected
for pH analysis. The albumen and yolk were separated
and pH measured using a model 220 Denver Instrument
pH meter (Denver Instrument, Denver, CO).
Albumen CO2 Content Measurements
The 5 eggs from albumen pH measurements were
tested to determine milligrams of CO2 per gram of al-
bumen. The CO2 content was measured using method-
ology by Keener et al. (2001).
VMS Measurements
The VMS was measured on 5 eggs; however, after
wk 6, the sample size was increased to 10 eggs because
of increasing variance. The VMS was determined by
using a TA-XT2i texture analyzer (Texture Technolo-
gies Corp., Scarsdale, NY). The texture analyzer set-
tings were from Keener et al. (2006). A 5-kg load cell
was used, along with a 3-mm round-tipped probe. Test
1268 Biladeau and Keener
Table 1. Average Haugh units during refrigerated storage1
Time (wk)

Item 0 1 2 3 4 6 8 12
a,y ab,z bcd,z bc,z cd,y de,z e,z
Control 82.8 78.9 74.2 76.3 74.6 68.6 67.6 65.7e,z
Oil 82.7a,y 84.0a,y 81.3ab,y 81.4ac,y 79.0ae,y 76.1bce,y 75.2be,y 73.1e,y
Wax 82.5a,y 79.8ab,z 79.7ab,yz 78.1abc,yz 75.4bce,y 74.5be,y 72.8ce,y 70.1e,yz
Whey protein isolate 81.4a,y 82.7a,y 75.4ab,yz 73.2b,y
Soy protein isolate 83.7a,y 78.6ab,yz 73.6bc,yz 72.0c,y
a–e
Means with different superscripts in the same row are statistically different (P < 0.05).
y,z
Means with different superscripts in the same column are statistically different (P < 0.05).
1
Root mean square error = 7.9.

speed was 3.2 mm/s with a trigger force of 0.09807 N cations on the egg. At least 1 L*, a*, and b* value was
or 0.01 kg. taken at the blunt or round tip for every egg.

Water Loss Measurements Foam Volume Measurements

Five eggs from each coating were weighed at each
sampling time. The same eggs were weighed over the
12-wk study. After the study, the moisture content of
the egg was determined by oven-drying the samples for
72 h at 60°C (ASABE, 1988).
Shell Strength Measurements
Foam volume was measured using a modified method
by Silversides and Budgell (2004). Approximately 60
g of albumen from 2 eggs for each coating were used
in foam testing. Mixing was done using a KitchenAid
K45SS model (KitchenAid Company, St. Joseph, MI).
Foam was measured in milliliters of foam per gram of
albumen.

Shell strength was measured on 5 eggs; however, after
wk 6, the sample size was increased to 10 samples be-
cause of increasing variance. Shell strength was tested
on a TA-XT2i texture analyzer (Texture Technologies
Corp.). The texture analyzer settings were taken from
Jones and Musgrove (2005). The eggs were placed in a
1.3-cm (1/2 in.) diameter polyvinyl chloride cap with
the blunt and round tips of the eggs being horizontal
and 90° from the 70-cm diameter cylinder probe when
contact was made with the sides of the egg.
Color Measurements
Five eggs from each coating were evaluated for color
using a Hunter Colorimeter Lab Scan XE with a 10°
view angle and D65 source (Hunter Lab, Reston, VA).
The L*, a*, and b* values were taken at 3 random lo-
Angel Food Cake Volume Measurements
Albumen (122.0 g) from 4 eggs was used to determine
angel food cake volume according to the method by
Sauter and Montoure (1975). Egg, cake flour, sugar,
cream of tartar, and salt were combined to make a cake
batter. The batter was mixed in a KitchenAid K45SS
model mixer. Once the cake batter was made, it was
separated into 4 mini-loaf pans and the volume was
measured using rapeseed volume displacement (Sauter
and Montoure, 1975).
Emulsion Stability Measurements
Approximately 2 egg yolks (16.0 g) were used to mea-
sure emulsion stability according to the procedure from
Harrison and Cunningham (1986). The egg yolks were

Table 2. Average albumen pH during refrigerated storage1

Time2 (wk)

Item 0 1 2 3 4 6 8 12

Control 8.64b,x 9.13a,x 9.22a,x 9.24a,x 9.17a,x 9.29a,x 9.19a,x 9.25a,x

Oil 8.35a,yz 8.09ab,z 8.03ab,z 8.31a,z 8.18ab,z 8.15ab,y 8.04ab,y 7.96b,z
Wax 8.41a,xz 8.46a,y 8.33a,y 8.43a,y 8.51a,y 8.31a,y 8.41a,z 8.49a,z
Whey protein isolate 8.53a,xy 8.36a,y 8.42a,yz 8.52a,y
Soy protein isolate 8.24b,z 8.58ab,y 8.77a,z 8.68a,y
a,b
Means with different superscripts in the same row are statistically different (P < 0.05).
x–z
Means with different superscripts in the same column are statistically different (P < 0.05).
1
Root mean square error = 0.21.
2
Coating treatment × time interaction (P < 0.0001) effect is significant.
 EFFECTS OF EDIBLE COATINGS ON CHICKEN EGG QUALITY 1269
1
Table 3. Average yolk pH during refrigerated storage
Time2 (wk)

Item 0 1 2 3 4 6 8 12
ab,y b,y abc,y ab,y abc,y cd,y ade,y
Control 6.01 5.94 6.14 6.00 6.05 6.28 6.23 6.27ace,y
Oil 5.97a,y 6.00a,y 5.96a,y 6.05a,y 5.97a,y 6.11a,y 5.96a,z 5.97a,z
Wax 5.94a,y 5.95a,y 5.99a,y 6.00a,y 6.00a,y 6.10a,y 5.99a,yz 6.10a,yz
Whey protein isolate 5.98a,y 6.02a,y 6.17a,y 6.09a,z
Soy protein isolate 6.01a,y 5.98a,y 6.03a,y 6.03a,z
a–e
Means with different superscripts in the same row are statistically different (P < 0.05).
y,z
Means with different superscripts in the same column are statistically different (P < 0.05).
1
Root mean square error = 0.15.
2
Time × replicate interaction effect (P < 0.0001) and coating treatment × time interaction (P = 0.0010) effect are significant.

combined with soybean oil, sugar, vinegar, and dry
mustard to make an oil-water emulsion (mayonnaise).
Emulsion stability was tested by centrifuging mayon-
naise for 20 min at 3,901 × g (4,500 rpm) and record-
ing the milliliters of oil that separated. The centrifuges
used were a Damon/IEC Division IEC HN-S centri-
fuge with a 215 rotor (Damon IEC Division, Needham
Heights, MA) and a Beckman Coulter Allegra X-22R
centrifuge with a SX4250 rotor (Beckman Coulter, Ful-
lerton, CA). Two centrifuges were used because the
first centrifuge broke during the study. For each batch
of mayonnaise, four 50-mL centrifugation tubes were
filled with mayonnaise and tested to determine millili-
ters of oil separated per gram of mayonnaise.
Statistics
Statistical analysis was completed in SAS 9.1.3 using
PROC GLIMMIX least squares means (P < 0.05; SAS,
2003). The GLIMMIX method was used to adjust for
multiple comparisons and to allocate a significance level.
For multiple comparisons, the Tukey-Kramer method
was used. Pearson correlation and PROC CORR were
used to determine if there was any correlation between
HU, albumen pH, and albumen CO2. All differences
stated are statistically different. For nonnormal data,
a box-Cox transformation was used to determine the
optimal λ (Kutner et al., 2005). The emulsion stability
had a λ of −0.5.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Haugh units are the primary indicator of quality in
the egg industry. There was a decrease in HU over the
12-wk study for all coatings (Table 1). At wk 0, all eggs
had equal HU. The rate of HU decrease was influenced
by coating. Control, wax, oil, SPI, and WPI showed sig-
nificant decreases in HU from initial quality at wk 2, 4,
6, 8, and 12, respectively. The coated eggs maintained
higher HU than the control beyond 6 wk. Haugh units
for all coated eggs were equal at 12 wk and higher than
the control except wax.
The control maintained an average AA quality for 4
wk. Oil- and WPI-coated eggs maintained an average
AA quality for the entire 12-wk study. The wax-coated
eggs maintained an average AA quality for 8 wk. The
SPI-coated eggs had AA quality eggs for all weeks ex-
cept wk 6. The shelf-life of AA can be extended with
the use of food-grade coatings to 8 wk for wax-coated
eggs and at least 12 wk for all other coatings. Past re-
search (Cancer, 2005a,b) conducted at room tempera-
ture (25°C) has shown that eggs coated with WPI, shel-
lac, and chitosan had higher HU (46.4 to 52.5) after 4
wk of storage than control (38.87).
Albumen pH
The albumen pH increased or was maintained over
time for all eggs except oil-coated ones (Table 2). The

Table 4. Average CO2 (mg/g of albumen) during refrigeration storage1

Time2 (wk)

Item 0 1 2 3 4 6 8 12
a,x ab,y b,y bc,y cd,z bce,y de,y
Control 1.86 1.65 1.63 1.48 1.38 1.44 1.25 1.32cde,z
Oil 2.05a,x 2.07a,x 2.06a,x 2.04a,x 2.02a,x 1.88a,x 1.88a,x 1.57b,y
Wax 1.99a,x 1.96a,x 1.97a,x 1.89a,x 1.82ab,y 1.77ab,x 1.74ab,x 1.62b,y
Whey protein isolate 1.97a,x 1.82a,xy 1.83a,x 1.97a,x
Soy protein isolate 2.04a,x 1.91ab,xy 1.75b,xy 1.79b,xy
a–e
Means with different superscripts in the same row are statistically different (P < 0.05).
x–z
Means with different superscripts in the same column are statistically different (P < 0.05).
1
Root mean square error = 0.16.
2
Time × replicate interaction effect (P < 0.0001) and coating treatment × time interaction effect (P < 0.0001) are significant.
1270 Biladeau and Keener
Figure 1. Weight loss (error bars indicate 1 SD). WPI = whey protein isolate; SPI = soy protein isolate.
trend is that the albumen pH of uncoated egg increased
at a rate much faster than the coated eggs. At wk 0,
the SPI- and oil-coated eggs were lower than the con-
trol; however, all other coatings were not different. This
pH difference at wk 0 was most likely due to natural
variation in the eggs. After 1 wk, the albumen pH for
all coated eggs was lower than the control. This indi-
cates that coating of eggs maintains a lower pH than
uncoated eggs over 12 wk of storage. The pH of oil-
coated eggs showed a slight decrease over time, with
the pH at wk 12 being lower than the pH at wk 0.
Heath (1977) showed that when eggs were coated with
paraffin oil and stored at 7°C over a 7-d period, there
was a decrease in pH from 8.3 to 8.1 (Heath, 1977). No
further explanation was provided. It is suspected that
possibly the oil may oxidize into free fatty acids, which
migrate into the egg albumen and lower pH. The pH of
wax- and WPI-coated eggs never changed from wk 0.
All coatings studied were able to extend the shelf-life of
eggs in relation to albumen pH.
The increase in albumen pH over time is related to
the loss of CO2 (Stadelman, 1995a). As albumen pH
increases, the bicarbonate buffering system equilibrium
shifts (Heath, 1977). For coated eggs, this buffering sys-
tem may not shift as quickly.
Yolk pH
At wk 0, there was no difference between the pH
of the yolk in control and any coated eggs (Table 3).
Table 5. Vitelline membrane strength during refrigerated stor-
age1
Item Vitelline membrane strength2 (N)
Control 0.0131 ± 0.0032b
Oil 0.0155 ± 0.0038a
Wax 0.0145 ± 0.0033a
Whey protein isolate 0.0160 ± 0.0020a
Soy protein isolate 0.0138 ± 0.0027b
a,b
Means with different superscripts are statistically different (P <
0.05).
1 1
Mean ± SD.
2 2
Coating treatment is significant (P < 0.0001).
After wk 8, the pH of the yolk in oil-coated eggs was
lower than the control. At wk 12, the pH of the yolk in
WPI- and SPI-coated eggs was lower than the control.
The pH of the yolk in SPI, wax, and control eggs was
equivalent throughout the study.
The pH of the yolk in uncoated eggs increased slight-
ly from pH 6.0 at wk 0 to pH 6.27 at wk 12. Previous
research has documented a maximum increase in yolk
pH of pH 6.0 to 6.8. (Romanoff and Romanoff, 1949).
This is expected because the pH of the albumen in-
creases during storage due to CO2 loss and water from
the albumen migrates into the yolk during storage.
The wax-, oil-, WPI-, and SPI-coated eggs showed no
change over the 12 wk of refrigerated storage. Over all
treatments and time periods, the change in pH of the
yolk was minimal.
CO2 Content in Egg Albumen
Carbon dioxide is lost through the pores of the egg-
shell during storage (Stadelman, 1995a). When CO2
is lost, the pH of the albumen increases (Stadelman,
1995a). An increase in pH will cause some denaturation
of proteins and a decrease in HU (Sharp and Powel,
1931). At wk 0, the CO2 content was equal for all eggs
(Table 4). After 2 wk, the control had lost 12% of its
CO2 content. The oil- and wax-coated eggs retained
92 and 87% of their CO2 content through 8 wk. At 12
wk, the wax- and oil-coated eggs lost considerable CO2.
The WPI retained its CO2 throughout the study. The
Table 6. Slope of water loss1
Item Egg weight loss slope2 (g/wk)
Control –0.280 ± 0.049c
Oil –0.028 ± 0.011a
Wax –0.002 ± 0.001a
Whey protein isolate –0.228 ± 0.036b
Soy protein isolate –0.241 ± 0.044b
a–c
Means with different superscripts are statistically different (P <
0.05).
Mean ± 1 SD.
Coating treatment is significant (P < 0.0001).
 EFFECTS OF EDIBLE COATINGS ON CHICKEN EGG QUALITY
Table 7. Least squares means average shell strength and thick-
ness1
Average shell Coating
Item strength (N) thickness (μm)
Control 38.1 ± 6.95b
Oil 40.0 ± 5.65b
Wax 42.2 ± 5.99a
Whey protein isolate 40.7 ± 4.55ab
Soy protein isolate 40.3 ± 6.01ab
a,b
Means with different superscripts are statistically different (P <
0.05).
1
Mean ± 1 SD.
SPI-coated eggs retained their CO2 for 2 wk. All of the
coatings retained CO2 longer than the control eggs. It
is suspected that the coatings decrease the CO2 perme-
ability of the shell. Carbon dioxide loss can be greatly
reduced by the addition of a coating. In particular, the
WPI-coated eggs showed no CO2 loss during 12 wk of
refrigerated storage.
Comparison of HU, Albumen pH, and CO2
The HU, albumen pH, and CO2 were taken for the
same egg. The HU, albumen pH, and CO2 are all corre-
lated. Similar results have been found in previous stud-
ies (Li-Chan et al., 1995). When pH increases, the HU
decrease. Carbon dioxide is in both a free form (satu-
rated CO2) and bicarbonate form in eggs (Romanoff
and Romanoff, 1949). When the free CO2 in uncoated
eggs is lost, there is an increase in albumen pH (Ro-
manoff and Romanoff, 1949). For the SPI and control,
a loss of CO2 and subsequent increase in albumen pH
was observed. Conversely, albumen pH of oil-coated
eggs decreased (Table 2) with CO2 loss. This decrease
of pH in oil-coated eggs at refrigeration temperatures
was also seen by Heath (1977). However, no explana-
tion was provided. This decrease may be related to the
loss of bicarbonate CO2, which would keep the bicar-
bonate buffer stable. The wax- and WPI-coated eggs
showed no change in albumen pH over the 12-wk study
even though wax lost considerable CO2 after wk 8. The
pH may not have increased for the wax- or WPI-coated
eggs due to the bicarbonate buffer system, especially
because there was not a significant loss of CO2 until
after wk 8.
1271
VMS
Vitelline membrane strength is the puncture force
required to rupture the membrane encasing the yolk.
There was no statistical difference in VMS with storage
0
13 time. Thus, the data were pooled and compared (Table
324 5). The oil-, wax-, and WPI-coated eggs provided a
29 14% higher VMS compared with the SPI-coated eggs
26
and control. The SPI-coated eggs and control showed
no differences. Kirunda and McKee (2000) determined
that increasing albumen pH reduces VMS due to pro-
tein degradation. Thus, reducing albumen pH increase
with select food-grade coatings may improve VMS.
Water Loss
The water loss over time can be seen in Figure 1. The
linear slope from highest to lowest is 0.28 g/wk for con-
trol, 0.24 g/wk for SPI-coated eggs, 0.23 g/wk for WPI-
coated eggs, 0.03 g/wk for oil-coated eggs, and 0.002
g/wk for wax-coated eggs (Table 6). The R2 values are
0.99 or higher. Coated eggs had a lower sample variance
than the control, suggesting that a food-grade coating
will reduce water loss in more porous eggs. The total
weight (water) loss during 12 wk of refrigerated storage
for control, SPI-, WPI-, oil-, and wax-coated eggs was
3.4, 2.9, 2.7, 0.35, and 0.03 g, respectively. These values
are comparable to previous research. Cancer (2005a)
found the weight loss was 6.8% for control, 4.3% for
WPI-coated eggs, 4.2% for chitosan-coated eggs, and
0.7% for shellac-coated eggs over a 4-wk study at room
temperature. The wax-coated eggs lost an insignificant
amount of water during the storage. Eggs are sold by
weight. Thus, more profit could be realized for reduced
water loss-coated eggs.
Shell Strength
The shell strength of a chicken egg is an important
economic consideration. The results from this study
found no change in shell strength during storage. The
wax-coated eggs had the highest shell strength and the
uncoated eggs had the lowest (Table 7). The wax coat-
ing was approximately 10 times thicker than the WPI
or SPI. In a few instances, wax-coated eggs were ob-
served to develop mold spots after 8 wk of storage. This

Table 8. The L*, a*, and b* values for eggshells1

Item L* a*2 b*3

Control 91.10 ± 1.32a −0.45 ± 0.16a 1.78 ± 0.89c

Oil 91.03 ± 1.56a −0.56 ± 0.16c 1.99 ± 0.92b
Wax 79.74 ± 3.36c −0.47 ± 0.14ab 1.45 ± 0.74d
Whey protein isolate 88.86 ± 1.53b −0.57 ± 0.17c 1.89 ± 0.91bc
Soy protein isolate 89.64 ± 1.85b −0.74 ± 0.21d 2.48 ± 0.91a
a–d
Means with different superscripts in the same column are statistically different (P < 0.05).
1
Mean ± 1 SD.
2
Treatment × replicate (P = 0.0013) interaction effect and treatment (P < 0.0001) are significant (P < 0.05).
3
Treatment × replicate (P < 0.0270) interaction effect and treatment (P < 0.0001) are significant (P < 0.05).
1272 Biladeau and Keener
Table 9. Egg foam volume (mL/g of albumen) over 12 wk of refrigerated storage1
Time2 (wk)

Item 0 1 2 3 4 6 8 12
ab,x ab,x b,x ab,x ab,x ab,x ab,x
Control 8.10 7.83 7.68 7.94 8.61 8.45 8.29 9.16a,x
Oil 6.75a,x 5.87ab,y 6.74a,x 5.12b,y 6.62a,y 5.65ab,y 5.00b,y 6.56a,yz
Wax 7.10a,x 6.12a,y 7.03a,x 6.50a,z 6.25a,y 5.83a,y 5.69a,y 6.41a,yz
Whey protein isolate 6.98a,x 6.95a,x 7.18a,y 6.18a,z
Soy protein isolate 7.25a,x 6.41a,x 6.23a,y 7.43a,y
a,b
Means with different superscripts in the same row are statistically different (P < 0.05).
x–z
Means with different superscripts in the same column are statistically different (P < 0.05).
1
Root mean square error = 0.21.
2
Time × replicate interaction effect (P < 0.0001) and coating treatment × time × replicate interaction (P < 0.0041) are significant.

most likely resulted from cross-contamination during
processing and the barrier properties of wax. This mi-
crobial contamination likely came from the processing
facility and resulted from limited gas exchange. Cancer
and Cansiz (2008) showed that coating eggs in chito-
san and organic acids significantly increased the shell
strength at the bottom and top of an egg. The control
shell strength was 32.4 to 36.3 N and the chitosan and
organic acids were between 37.4 and 4.72 N.
oil- and WPI-coated eggs were equally yellow as the
control. The SPI-coated eggs were more yellow than
the control. There was no yellowing effect over time for
control, wax, or WPI. Cancer (2005a) determined that
there was no difference in yellow color between WPI-
coated eggs and control, which confirms the results.
The wax having less glossiness and the SPI being more
yellow were the only color differences detected visu-
ally.

Eggshell Color Foam Volume

Eggshell color is one factor used by consumers in
selecting eggs (Table 8). The L*, a*, and b* values
were measured for each coating over the storage period.
Results found that wax-coated eggs had a decreasing
L* over time and SPI had a yellowing effect with time.
The WPI-, SPI-, and wax-coated eggs were darker (less
glossy) than the control (lower L*). Cancer (2005a)
measured L*, a*, and b* color values for coated eggs
and reported that WPI-coated eggs were glossier (high-
er L*) than the uncoated egg. The opposite effect was
seen with data related to the WPI-coated eggs for this
study. This could result from differing WPI products.
The SPI-coated eggs had the most green hue (negative
a*), followed by oil-coated and WPI-coated eggs. Wax-
coated eggs showed no difference from the control.
The positive b* values indicate that the egg is more
yellow than blue. There was no yellowing effect ob-
served for wax-coated eggs over time. The wax-coated
eggs were significantly less yellow than the control. The
Egg foam volume is very important in manufactured
egg products. Coating of eggs may affect foam volume.
In this study, the foam volume for uncoated eggs in-
creased 12% from wk 0 to 12 (Table 9). The oil, wax,
WPI, and SPI remained constant throughout the 12-wk
study. It is suspected that the pH increase is respon-
sible for the increased foam volume. Henry and Bar-
bour (1933) measured foam volume and showed that
increasing egg albumen pH from pH 8.3 to 9.5 increased
foam volume 3%. Egg foam volume can be increased by
increasing pH or increasing whipping time.
Angel Food Cake Volume
Angel food cake volume tests heat-stable foam prop-
erties of egg albumen. Angel food cake volume remained
constant in uncoated eggs, wax-coated eggs, and SPI-
coated eggs over 12 wk of refrigerated storage (Table
10). Angel food cake volume decreased slightly (ap-

Table 10. Angel food cake volume (mL) during refrigerated storage1
Time2 (wk)

Item 0 1 2 3 5 7 9 12

Control 302.98a,y 286.34a,y 290.38a,y 292.62a,y 290.15a,y 296.55a,y 283.30a,y 286.00a,yz

Oil 297.45a,y 289.71ab,y 290.6ab,y 274.21ab,y 278.03ab,y 286.9ab,y 265.90b,z 270.55b,y
Wax 304.41a,y 276.68ab,y 297.12ab,y 276.68ab,y 285.21ab,y 284.32ab,y 274.21b,yz 287.68ab,yz
Whey protein isolate 303.07a,y 287.23ab,y 289.71ab,y 276.74b,yz
Soy protein isolate 299.85a,y 290.83a,y 281.4a,y 290.04a,z
a,b
Means with different superscripts in the same row are statistically different (P < 0.05).
y,z
Means with different superscripts in the same column are statistically different (P < 0.05).
1
Root mean square error = 10.89.
2
Time (P < 0.0001), replicate (P = 0.0226), and coating treatment-replicate (P = 0.0022) are significant.
 EFFECTS OF EDIBLE COATINGS ON CHICKEN EGG QUALITY 1273
1
Table 11. Separation of oil from mayonnaise (mL of oil/g of mayonnaise) during refrigerated storage
Time2 (wk)

Item 0 1 2 3 4 6 8 10 12
ab,y ab,y ab,y ab,y ab,y b,z ab,y a,y
Control 0.0047 0.0043 0.0132 0.0043 0.0115 0.0046 0.0077 0.0171 0.0145a,y
Oil 0.0060abc,y 0.0035bc,y 0.0116abc,y 0.0061abc,y 0.0054abc,y 0.0044c,z 0.0070abc,y 0.0171ab,y 0.0160a,y
Wax 0.0062ab,y 0.0037b,y 0.0096ab,y 0.0053b,y 0.0073ab,y 0.0051b,z 0.0058ab,y 0.0202a,y 0.0172a,y
Whey protein isolate 0.0074b,y 0.0071ab,y 0.0192ab,y 0.0177a,y
Soy protein isolate 0.0088a,y 0.0075a,y 0.0063a,z 0.0133a,y
a–c
Means with different superscripts in the same row are statistically different (P < 0.05).
y,z
Means with different superscripts in the same column are statistically different (P < 0.05).
1
Root mean square error = 0.007.
2
Time is significant (P < 0.0001).

proximately 8%) for WPI- and oil-coated eggs. These
results are similar to results by Jones (2007), in which
angel food cake volume of uncoated eggs decreased 7%
during an 8-wk study at 4°C.
Emulsion Stability
Emulsification stability for all eggs increased slightly
over the 12 wk of refrigerated storage, although not
significantly (Table 11). There were only a few signifi-
cant differences observed. It is suspected that the large
sample variance overwhelmed coating differences. A
main reason for the large sample variance is the mak-
ing of the mayonnaise. If the rate of oil addition varies
(i.e., adding oil faster or slower), the mayonnaise ma-
trix is altered. This results in a change in the particle
size distribution. Previous research (Jones, 2007) has
documented that the rate of oil addition greatly influ-
ences results. The CV for mayonnaise range was 22.8
to 54.1%.
Conclusions
Eggs coated with food-grade coatings have higher
HU, higher VMS, higher shell strength, lower albumen
pH, and less water loss than uncoated eggs over 12 wk
of refrigerated storage. Food-grade coatings can extend
shelf-life of shell eggs. The oil, SPI-, and WPI-coated
eggs maintained AA quality for the entire 12-wk study
compared with only 4 wk for the uncoated eggs. The
wax-coated eggs maintained AA quality for at least
8 wk. The wax-coated eggs had negligible water loss
through the shell compared with 5% for the uncoated
eggs. The oil-, wax-, and WPI-coated eggs provided a
14% higher VMS compared with the SPI-coated eggs
and control. The oil- and wax-coated eggs retained 92
and 87% of their CO2 content through 8 wk compared
with the control, which only retained 66%. The wax-
coated eggs had a 4 to 10% higher shell strength than
all others. Foam volume was reduced for coated eggs
due to the lower albumen pH. This could be corrected
in egg products by increasing whipping time or increas-
ing egg pH. For angel food cake volume, there was an
overall decrease, although not significant, in foam vol-
ume with storage time and uncoated eggs had higher
angel food cake volume. The emulsion stability was not
affected by the coatings.
Coating eggs with food-grade coatings would be ben-
eficial in extending the shelf-life of eggs. Paraffin wax
may be a preferred coating to use on eggs because it
maintained HU longer, increased VMS, had higher CO2
content, increased shell strength, and had negligible wa-
ter loss. When eggs are exported, they would be more
susceptible to breakage due to longer transport. Thus,
a coating of wax that would decrease risk of breakage
and still maintain quality would be beneficial for export
of eggs.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank the local egg producer for the donation of
the eggs. We thank all of the graduate and undergradu-
ate students who aided in the set-up and implementa-
tion of the experiment. Finally, we acknowledge Alex
Lipka and Bruce Craig (Department of Statistics, Pur-
due University), who aided in the statistical analysis.
REFERENCES
American Egg Board. 2006. Egg industry facts. http://www.aeb.
org/Retailers/industry.html Accessed Feb. 2006.
American Egg Board. 2008. US population, egg population, egg pro-
duction, and consumption. http://www.aeb.org/Industry/Facts/
EggProduction.htm Accessed Apr 2008.
ASABE. 1988. ASAE Standard S 358.2 Moisture Measurement For-
ages. American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers,
St. Joseph, MI.
Cancer, C. 2005a. The effect of edible eggshell coatings on egg quali-
ty and consumer perception. J. Sci. Food Agric. 85:1897–1902.
Cancer, C. 2005b. Whey protein isolate coating and concentration
effects on egg shelf-life. J. Sci. Food Agric. 85:2143–2148.
Cancer, C., and O. Cansiz. 2008. Chitosan coating minimizes egg-
shell breakage and improves egg quality. J. Sci. Food Agric.
88:56–61.
Gast, R. K., R. P. Holt, and T. Murase. 2005. Penetration of Salmo-
nella Enteritidis and Salmonella Heidelberg through the vitelline
membrane in an in vitro egg contamination model. Poult. Sci.
84:621–625.
Gennadios, A., A. H. Brandenburg, C. L. Weller, and R. F. Testin.
1993. Effect of pH on properties of wheat gluten and soy protein
isolate. J. Agric. Food Chem. 41:1835–1839.
Harrison, L. J., and F. E. Cunningham. 1986. Influence of salt on
properties of liquid yolk and functionality in mayonnaise. Poult.
Sci. 65:915–921.
1274 Biladeau and Keener
Haugh, R.R. 1937. The Haugh unit for measuring egg quality. US
Egg Poultry Magazine 43:522–555, 572–573.
Heath, J. L. 1977. Chemical and related osmotic changes in egg
albumen during storage. Poult. Sci. 56:822–828.
Henry, W. C., and A. D. Barbour. 1933. Beating properties of egg
white. Ind. Eng. Chem. 25:1054–1058.
Jones, D. R. 2007. Egg functionality and quality during long-term
storage. Int. J. Poult. Sci. 6:157–162.
Jones, D. R., and M. T. Musgrove. 2005. Effects of extended storage
on egg quality factors. Poult. Sci. 84:1774–1777.
Keener, K. M., J. D. LaCrosse, and J. K. Babson. 2001. Chemical
method for determination of carbon dioxide content in egg yolk
and egg albumen. Poult. Sci. 80:983–987.
Keener, K. M., K. C. McAvoy, J. B. Foegeding, P. A. Curtis, K. E.
Anderson, and J. A. Osborne. 2006. Effect of testing temperature
on internal egg quality measurements. Poult. Sci. 85:550–555.
Kirunda, D. F. K., and S. R. McKee. 2000. Relation quality charac-
teristics of aged eggs and fresh eggs to vitelline membrane strength
as determined by a texture analyzer. Poult. Sci. 79:1189–1193.
Kutner, M. H., C. J. Nachtsheim, J. Neter, and W. Li. 2005. Applied
Linear Statistical Models. McGraw-Hill Irwin, Boston, MA.
Li-Chan, E. C., W. D. Powrie, and S. Nakai. 1995. The chemistry of
eggs and egg products. Pages 105–175 in Egg Science and Tech-
nology. 4th ed. W. J. Stadelman and O. J. Cotterill, ed. Food
Products Press, New York, NY.
Meyer, R., and J. V. Spencer. 1973. The effect of various coatings on
shell strength and egg quality. Poult. Sci. 52:703–711.
Romanoff, A. L., and A. J. Romanoff. 1949. The Avian Egg. John
Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
SAS. 2003. Statistical Analysis Software Version 9.3.1. SAS Institute
Inc., Cary, NC.
Sauter, E. A., and J. E. Montoure. 1975. Effects of adding 2% freeze-
dried egg white to batters of angel food cakes made with white
containing egg yolk. J. Food Sci. 40:869–871.
Shafer, A., W. Drewes, and F. Schwagele. 1998. Analysis of vitelline
membrane proteins of fresh and stored eggs via HPLC. Z. Leb-
ensm. Unters. Forsch. A 206:329–332.
Sharp, P. F., and K. C. Powel. 1931. Increase in the pH of the white
and yolk of hens’ eggs. Ind. Eng. Chem. 23:196–199.
Silversides, F. G., and K. Budgell. 2004. The relationships among
measures of egg albumen, height, pH, and whipping volume.
Poult. Sci. 83:1619–1623.
Stadelman, W. J. 1995a. The preservation of quality in shell eggs.
Pages 67–79 in Egg Science and Technology. 4th ed. W. J. Sta-
delman and O. J. Cotterill, ed. Food Products Press, New York,
NY.
Stadelman, W. J. 1995b. Quality identification of shell eggs. Pages
39–66 in Egg Science and Technology. 4th ed. W. J. Stadelman
and O. J. Cotterill, ed. Food Products Press, New York, NY.
Ternes, W. 2001. Egg proteins. Pages 335–371 in Chemical and
Functional Properties of Food Proteins. Z. E. Sikorski, ed. CRC
Press, Boca Raton, FL.
US Census Bureau. 2008. US and World Population Clock. https://
ask.census.gov/cgi-bin/askcensus.cfg/php/enduser/std_alp.php
Accessed April 2008.
USDA. 2008. Egg Grading Manual. http://www.ams.usda.gov/
AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELDEV3004502 Accessed May
2008.
Wong, Y. C., T. J. Herald, and K. A. Hachmeister. 1996. Evaluation
of mechanical and barrier properties of protein coatings on shell
eggs. Poult. Sci. 75:417–422.